4/27/2005

Haven't gotten the chance to write this up over the past couple of weeks, but it represents my attempt, as a member of the Rabbinic profession, to talk about something other than lashon ho-ra during the weeks of tazria and metzora.

First off, I wonder if there's reaslly a connection between the term 'psoraisis' and 'tzara'at'.

There's a clear progression here, where the tzara'at itself moves from being something relatively incidental to being something all-consuming. The identity of the afflicted person becomes increasingly wrapped up in the tzara'at, and there's a fall from being 'adam', to 'ish o ishah' to ish-tzaru'a' to 'tzaru'a' to 'metzora'.

Rambam (Tum'at Tzara'at 16:10) describes a different progression, where the more obstinate the person, the closer to his person the disease would affect - house, furniture, clothing, body.

One whose home was afflicted went to consult the kohein; one whose person was afflicted was brought before the kohein. Apparently, denial aint just a river in Egypt.

It doesn't seem too far-fetched to suggest that the diagnosis and cure of Tzara'at parallels the psychanalytic process. Therapy is designed to take a person who appears well on the surface and probe early experiences to discover unhealthy pesonaliy structures; by identifying and accepting them, they can be healed. If they remain under the surface of consciousness, they remain unhealthy. Both the Rambam's progression here (and his description of the Teshuvah process; this is the real role of 'vidui' - confession. Bring a repressed memory to the forefront of consciousness so that it can be released), and the progression in the torah itself, where one can only become cleansed by fully identifying with the root of the problem.

The healing ceremony reflects a maintenance of a certain type of balance:Cedar balanced by hyssop and 'tola'at shani' - Majesty balanced by humility2 birds - one sacrificed, one dipped in blood and set free - autonomy balanced by submission

Final thought: Rashi quotes a Midrash that when entering the land, the homes of the conquered Canaanites were afflicted with tzara'at, so that the Israelites would find treasure that the Canaanites had buried. This goes with our psychoanalytic model as well: the purpose of Tzara'at is to instigate a process of digging. That process can culminate in the finding of 'treasure' buried within the subconscious realms.

Is this real? Is this my attempt to come to grips with a superstitious artifact of my own culture? Is it an attempt by the Torah to sublimate prevalent superstitions?

Maybe I'm just in denial about the implications of looking at this in another way. But like I mentioned - denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

4/21/2005

...but apparently we still need to import Badatz certified Kosher for Pesach water to Canada.

Canada has more freshwater resources than any other country in the world. It has hundreds of thousands of lakes. Israel is semi-arid and has water shortages that aren't going to get any better.

This is an example of losing sight of the forest for the pine-needles. And this passes as a chumra. I mean, I'm all for filters and what-not to make sure that chas ve-sholom no peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwiches come out of the spigot. But when it means importing drinking water to Canada, it just bugs (no pun intended) the heck outta me.

I've already posted about my skepticism regarding formal school systems here and here.However, they do have the benefits that they keep our children out of our hair for significant chunks of time. Of course, they get off when we REALLY need them out of our hair, like the days before Pesach. My daughter's been getting into lots of trouble because she's out of routine and there's so much cool new stuff to break around the house.

I also seem to recall that it's during bein hazmanim, especially during the summer, when the days are long and there's not much to do, that the Quaker youths run around hurling stones at traffic and screaming 'Shabbes, Shabbes!' Too much free time.

It's during these days that our children are exposed to, and therefore perpetuate, annual rituals of pyromania and OCD.

I've always been taught that Halakha provides outlets for every basic human desire, and that all treif tastes have their kosher counterparts. I believe that, and think that's great. So we get bombed off our a**es on Purim. And we go OCD before Pesach. And the wannabe pyromaniacs coume out in full force on Erev Pesach.

You know who I'm talking about: the bozo who shows up at the communal burning with 3 gallons of lighter fluid and tons of cellophane and styrofoam that was once in the same room as some corn. These idiots are singlehandedly responsible for the hole in the ozone layer. And all the kids get to watch and learn.

BB: Do I need fish food that’s Kosher for Passover?AR: Yes.BB: Why? A dog wouldn’t eat fish food!AR: True, but your fish would.BB: What should I feed my fish, then?AR: Matzah. Unless you have chassidishe fish that don’t eat gebroktsBB: Can fish eat matzah?AR: Why not? They may just be swimming near the bottom of the tank for a week, and you may have to clean it really well after Pesach.BB: I’m Sefardic, do I can feed them rice, right?AR: Maybe you should just buy some Kosher for Passover fish food. Or worms.

4/17/2005

This post is essentially a long comment on the Godol's latest. While I agree w/ most (as usual), I have a couple of bones to pick.

1) I don't think that Judaism evolved a systematic afterlife because of the dread of death. I think the perceived injustice of this life mandated the belief that there's a final reckoning where the righteous and wicked reap what they sowed.

2) On the paragraph:

A notion you read about a lot in literature about religion (as opposed toreligious literature) is that one of the primary reasons for religion isfear of death. The theory is that mankind is so terrified of death that theymade up religion to give them an afterlife.

I agree with the premise, but think that think type of psychology of religion misses a crucial point. Start with the following question: Why haven't animals besides humans evolved a concept of an afterlife in order to deal with their dread of death? It's pretty clear that animals don't really ask themselves questions about the meaningfulness/meaninglessness of life. They're not terrified of death because they aren't bothered by the potential futility of their own existence, because they don't have an existential need to be meaningful.humans, however, ARE bothered. People start asking all sorts of great questions from about age 3, and only stop when they're taught not to ask questions. Questioning is natural for humans. They, apparently, need the world to be comprehensible in a very fundamental way.

So the psychologists of religion can posit that GIVEN the human need for a comprehensible world, they are driven to theological systems, creating evolutionary pressure for religion to develop. But I'm asking a question on that given: Why do humans need a comprehensible world? What forced humans out of the mainstream of the animal kingdom and into this angst-ridden existence of dread and meaning? Can evolution account for it? I'm having a hard time figuring out how.

4/15/2005

The original context (Menachot 43a) addressed the aspect of #s of Mitzvot, or so it seems. Given that it was recited in pretty much all-male contexts, and was pretty much true (it was a LOT harder to be a woman back then, and still somewhat harder today. Men don’t have to worry about getting pregnant or raped or stuck without a toilet around).

The Tur, when introducing the bracha of ‘She-asani kirtzono’, calls it ‘tziduk ha-din’ , an acceptance of an incomprehensible divine justice. This makes matters worse; it pretty much denies the possibility of apologetics (i.e., women don’t need as many mitzvoth because they’re on a higher spiritual level). By adding that bracha (which doesn’t appear in the Gemara), it actually makes matters worse.

Contemporary feminist (and not so feminist) sensibilities are uncomfortable with a bracha that says “Thank God I’m not a woman” – exacerbated by it’s public recital every day.

Like so many other issues, there’s a conflict between contemporary values (and I won’t say ‘modern’ or ‘secular’ values, because I really think that not demeaning women publicly – if indeed something would be perceived in that way – is something that we ought to refrain from morally and religiously) and established practice. What to do, within a Halakhic framework?

Some hackneyed solutions:

Apologize and do it anyway

Whisper the brachot

Start from the beginning of psukei de-zimrah

Institute a new bracha that’s neutral but preserves the themes of the original

Some ideas that I batted around with the ADDeRebbetzin:

Women should/can simply stop saying ‘she-asani’; it’s not a bracha from the Gemara anyway, was apparently instituted to make women feel better, somehow, so why not skip it? Once the ‘tziduk ha-din’ element is removed, the men’s bracha can become more palatable as a reference to mitzvoth in particular

That logic can be extended; the men’s bracha of ‘shelo asani ishah’ can be contextualized to a time that it was really much more difficult to be a woman – economically, socially, healthwise, etc. Relating it to the Gemara in Menachot, more mitzvoth is a symptom of grater freedom and greater control over one’s own choices – free to do mitzvoth (the Gemara’s equation of women and slaves in this context can support this read; ayen sham). Thus, perhaps that’s the ‘woman’ that we men ought to be thinking of when we make the bracha (like the Nazir used to think about the President of the USA when he made a ‘shelo asani goy’). Theoretically, the bracha might as well have been ‘Thank God for creating me in a generation where indoor plumbing is readily available’, but the point is that we’re trying to preserve ‘matbei’a she-tav’u chakhamim’.

This is a bit of a wildcard: perhaps both men AND women should say ‘she’asani kirtzono’. First off all, didn’t beis hillel agree with beis shammai that we’re beter off not being created? In that case, there’s an element of ‘tzidduk ha-din’ in all of us. It would mean appropriating an already existing bracha to a new context, which isn’t nearly as problematic as inventing a new bracha (especially for Ashkenazim, who make a bracha n the minhag of saying hallel on Rosh Chodesh and who make brachot on voluntary mitzvoth, such as a woman sitting in the sukkah. For Sephardim it might be different, but they might agree in this case since it’s a bracha of shevach, not mitzvahJ). It can even neutralize of re-invent that bracha so that it’s altogether positive and isn’t a ‘tziduk ha-din’ at all. It can even be interpreted to mean that we are all somehow uniquely endowed to ascertain and execute God’s will – we were made to accord with His will (rather than ‘in accordance with).

One other possibility - also a bit controversial but not completely 'out of bounds', would be to skip the bracha entirely. The 'chyuv' of 'me'ah brachot' is a general one, and these brachot are a way of expressing the general theme of finding things to praise God for. Do we men really feel compelled to thank God for not being created a woman? I don't. Should we lie in our brachot? If not, we should skip it or substitute alternative meanings (as in previous suggestions).

The final solution, which is really what most people do - just say the bracha without any kavana. It's easy.

Not that he needs my approbation, but the Ramban really hits a home run here. The balance that he strikes between the desire to comprehend God's world and the acknowledgement that he's limited by his humanity, is truly moving, IMO.

‘Since there is an incomprehensible element in Divine justice, and we are perforce required to believe in His righteousness as a True Judge, may He be blessed and elevated, why bother us and command us to learn all of the different claims that we have explained and secrets that we’ve alluded to (earlier in this work, which deals with theodicy - AR), rather than attributing everything to the fact that, when all is said and done, we believe that God does not err or forget, and that all of His ways are just. ‘

This is the claim of fools who despise wisdom! We would help ourselves by studying all that we mentioned, so that we become wise knowers of God, of His ways and His acts. Furthermore, we will believe and be more secure in our belief than others, in that which is known and that which is hidden. For we would infer the unknown from the explicit to understand the integrity of justice and the rightness of the law; For every creature who worships out of love and reverence is obligated to, in his mind, justify God’s justice and perceive the truth in God’s judgements as much as one can. These are the ways of the wise which we have described. This is to settle one’s mind in these matters, so that the judgement of His creator will true to him as far as he can comprehend, and thereby recognize the justice and rightness even of those thing which are beyond him…

4/10/2005

Everyone who's worth his yeshivish salt knows about the 4 letters that were written to the young R' Shimon Schwab on secular studies and attending university. All opposed, the letters were from R' Borcuh Ber Leibowitz, R' Elchanan Wasserman, the Rogachover Gaon, and a fourth that I can't remember.

The list you never read (perhaps because it's never been compiled?) is the list of bona fide gedolim who held doctorates from secular universities. Here goes:

R' Dr. Zvi Hirsch Chajes (mahari"tz chajes) zt"l

R' Dr. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg zt"l

R' Dr. Esriel Hildesheimer zt"l

R' Dr. Dovid Zvi Hoffman zt"l

R' Dr. Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Herzog zt"l

R' Dr. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik

yblch"t R' Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein shlit"a

R' Dr. Nachum Rabinovich shlit"a

on tap - R' Dr. Michael Rosenzweig shlit"a

R' Dr. Yitzchak Breitowitz shlit"a

I'll also point out that of the first 6 that I mention, all of European stock, 4 were major poskim as well (R's Drs. Weinberg, Hildesheimer, Hoffman, and Herzog) who have penned many, many volumes of responsa. WADR to R's Wasserman, Leibowitz, and the Rogatchover, none of them are known as major poskim. Perhaps the 4th, who I can't remember, was, but these 4 are still nothing to sneeze at.

In addition, the following European gedolim attended Universities (American gedolim who attended universities are too numerous to count, and i'm not sure if YU should count since it's not really so secular; R' Gifter zt"l, yblch"t R's Scheinberg, Schachter, Willig, etc. all went there):

R' Yitzchak Hutner zt"l

R' Menachem Mendel Schneerson zt"l

R' SR Hirsch zt"l

I have no doubt that I'm missing some, and I'm sure that commenters will supply their names.It's about time that the MO community recognize that it's not just RYBS and RAIK, and that there's no reason to be bullied by Binyan Olam-toting twits who give no credence to an alternative to the standard yeshivishe approach.

I'm not suggesting that a doctorate is evidence of a positive attitude toward secular education. Nor is lack of one evidence of a negative attitude. It does say something, however, when serious gedolim are shown to have gone after serious secular educations.

Finally, I'll add a list of those gedolim of earlier generations of the modern era - not listed above - who displayed characteristics that resonate well with the MO-i.e.- who should be 'drafted' squarely into the MO pantheon if they're not already:

4/09/2005

As a result of a recent speaking engagement, I tried to formulate for myself the basic assumptions/beliefs of Halakhic Judaism. I tried being broad (and almost necessarily vague). The result was interesting – it became an alternative list of ‘ikkarei emunah’. I expect a Marc Shapiro – type fisking.

God created the world purposefully

Man’s role is central to God’s purpose for the world

Man can know God’s Will and emulate His attributes

God communicates His Will to man

Man can choose between good and evil

Man bears the consequences of his actions

The world is perfectible

God selected the Nation of Israel to be the catalyst for the achievement of His purposes

God and the Nation of Israel entered into a bilateral covenant from which He will never renege.

God communicated his expectations of Israel under this covenant through Moses; the Torah is the record of those communications.

God authorized acceptable members of the Nation of Israel to interpret and apply the Torah to every reality encountered according to their understanding; this application is called ‘Halakha’.

God selected the Land of Israel to be the stage where the Nation of Israel, in accordance with their Torah, carries out their mission.

4/01/2005

I’ve asked the following question to many people, and all give the same, predictable, WRONG answer:

Q. Why was Al Capone put in prison?A. Tax evasion

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

All Capone was put into prison because he was a vicious gangster.

The legal mechanism by which he was convicted was tax evasion.

This is an important point for understanding da’as Torah and my previous point about Yeridat Hadorot. With regard to the latter, it demonstrates how intuitive legislation can precede the legal theory, but that the legal theory is still valuable and necessary.

With regard to the former, it demonstrates that legal decisions are often motivated by factors other than straight legalistic thinking, but that it’s important to preserve thesystem by formulating those decisions in a legal parlance and with legal constructs. This would identify a midpoint between extreme ex cathedra formulations of an overreaching Da’as Torah, but at the same time eschew an approach which allows for any bozo who can work a Bar Ilan CD to pasken.

If you will, it’s a marriage between ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ attitudes toward law, with Da’as Torah being the feminine element. I’m still reading Dr. Tamar Ross’s book, but based on the earlier article, I believe that either she misses that point, or that in contemporary times the intuitive elements of Halakha are being neglected (or both).

It also means that, in essence, when Blu Greenberg says “where there’s a Rabbinic will there’s a Halakhic way”, she’s pretty close to the truth. I think that the problem is that she tends to confuse her own will with ‘Rabbinic Will’ = ‘Da’as Torah’.